Closed Bug 691950 Opened 9 years ago Closed 8 years ago
Set up directories for W3C CSSWG test suite sync to/from mozilla-central
1.70 KB, text/plain
1.44 KB, text/plain
1.49 KB, text/plain
916 bytes, text/plain
8.17 KB, patch
|Details | Diff | Splinter Review|
10.34 KB, patch
|Details | Diff | Splinter Review|
I wanted to set up a directory in mozilla-central where we can host tests that are sync'ed with W3C, specifically for the CSSWG test suites, which are dual-licensed under the W3C Document License and the BSD 3-clause. The dual-license that applies to the W3C tests: http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2008/04-testsuite-copyright The license grant W3C requests of test contributors is attached. What I'd like to do is to create other-licenses/ |-w3c-css/ |-submitted/ # tests we are submitting to W3C, our copy is master |-received/ # tests we are receiving from W3C, their copy is master with a LICENSE file stating the 3-clause BSD under which these files are licensed and explaining licensing terms for contributions to these directories on mozilla-central. This bug is to get legal sign-off on the plan.
Reading Rigo's doc, I think the right thing is for us to outbound-license as pure BSD, as he says that's OK with him. This all seems fine to me, but we need an official legal sign-off. Gerv
Assignee: gerv → nobody
Product: mozilla.org → Legal
QA Contact: licensing → handerson
Version: other → unspecified
Luis - Can you please take a look at this and let us know if you agree with Gerv or have other thoughts?
Assignee: nobody → villalu
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: -- → P2
Whiteboard: under legal review by outside counsel
Since Luis hasn't responded I'm reassigning to Jishnu.
Assignee: villalu → jmenon
Whiteboard: under legal review by outside counsel → under legal review
Can I get an ETA on this, so I know whether to set up an interim solution that doesn't require legal signoff?
Hi - I agree with Gerv, the contribution license should be pure BSD and am fine with the inbound license. Could you rewrite the README file to reflect this and re-up for a quick look?
Assignee: jmenon → fantasai.bugs
Whiteboard: under legal review → fantasai to re-upload README file with corrections
Alright jmenon, let me know if anything needs further changing.
Jishnu - looks like this is back in your court.
Assignee: fantasai.bugs → jmenon
Whiteboard: fantasai to re-upload README file with corrections → revised README file provided for review
Can I get an ETA on this, so I know whether to set up an interim solution that doesn't require legal signoff? Thanks~
Ok, I'm going to assume that legal has no problem with this since they haven't responded. Shifting into Core for implementation.
Assignee: jmenon → nobody
Component: Licensing → Layout
Product: Legal → Core
QA Contact: handerson → layout
Comment on attachment 564732 [details] LICENSE file Going through unassigned reviews. dbaron, can you review or reassign as appropriate?
Attachment #564732 - Flags: review? → review?(dbaron)
This patch creates the submitted and received directories in layout/reftests and adds README files to explain each.
Attachment #615542 - Flags: review?(dbaron)
Summary: Set up W3C <-> mozilla-central sync for CSSWG test suites → Set up directories for W3C CSSWG test suite sync to/from mozilla-central
Comment on attachment 615542 [details] [diff] [review] patch 3 thoughts so far: * the LICENSE file might not be clear enough for the "submitted" directory, since for test submissions people need to agree to W3C's license too * you need to add your new layout/reftests/w3c-css/submitted/reftest.list to layout/reftests/reftest.list with an include line. * your commented out "import" lines should be "include" lines instead
Comment on attachment 615542 [details] [diff] [review] patch >+Do not touch anything here unless you are a layout/ or automation >+tools owner or peer, or have permission from one and know what you >+are doing. I don't think there's any reason to mention ownership rules; you should just say that you shouldn't make any changes here that don't come from the master repository, because if you do they'll be overwritten by the next sync. r=dbaron with that and the issues in the previous comment fixed
Attachment #615542 - Flags: review?(dbaron) → review+
Patch with review comments addressed.
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla16
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
What are the next steps here?
I think the next steps here are to start syncing things occasionally and make the process more automated as time progresses. I did a first sync from submitted/ into the W3C repository yesterday; a first pass at syncing into received/ probably requires a script for just the first pass.
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/b64118688939 (bustage fix for previous)
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.